Received a CCJ claim from BW legal for a parking ticket

lacoolj87

My situation,


I am the tenant in a housing assoication block of flats,
I moved in in the february and started parking there,

Until i had a chance to move my insurance over i racked up a lot of tickets which i ignored until i received a court letter,


While in court the first time, the rep for the parking produced a letter showing NTC having signed a letter with the housing people in june of 2017 saying they have the right to patrol my carpark, i signed my lease in FEB 17, the juddge did notice this but did not seem to care to much

[Deleted User]

Was the rubbish reference to permits always there?

lacoolj87

On the sign you mean.?? If so then I believe so. They were when I moved in

DoaM

Forbidding signage ... you cannot contract to do that which is forbidden.

And if that is the only reference to parking in your tenancy agreement then your have primacy of contract; a 3rd party cannot offer to contract with you to do something which you already have rights to do.

Have you seen your landlord's lease/deeds? Do they mention anything more in respect of parking?

lacoolj87

thank you for the reply,

when you say my landlords lease i am not sure what you mean, my landlord is broadland housing association, the only lease i have seen is my own which I signed when I moved in

lacoolj87

the reference to permits I am not sure if was always there, it is just a sticker so who knows,
tbh I didn't look at the poor signage until I got my first ticket

[Deleted User]

Strictly speaking (and it's a narrow interpretation) but there is nothing on the sign to suggest that only permit holders are authorised.

The sign says authorised only, then permit holders was added at a later date, suggesting that was a new additional class of vehicles.

I don't think the wording in the lease is good enough. It needs to be explicit that you own flat 1 plus parking bay 1 etc to claim clear demise and exclusive use without interference imho, but I'm not a property lawyer, not have I seen the full document.

lacoolj87

Hello all, I WON THE CASE,



although the judge, Mrs Walden-Smithdid say i had a strong case, she couldnt say for sure i would have won if the scammers had bothered to turn up,



Can you believe after all this they dont bother,



I can not thank all of you enough for all your help,



The judge said they may appeal but would have to do it very quickly, and if they did she said with a rye smile and wink, would insist it comes back before her.

DoaM

Well done.

What about your costs?

DoaM

Johnersh wrote: »

Strictly speaking (and it's a narrow interpretation) but there is nothing on the sign to suggest that only permit holders are authorised.

The sign says authorised only, then permit holders was added at a later date, suggesting that was a new additional class of vehicles.

I don't think the wording in the lease is good enough. It needs to be explicit that you own flat 1 plus parking bay 1 etc to claim clear demise and exclusive use without interference imho, but I'm not a property lawyer, not have I seen the full document.

My understanding (and IANAL) is that parking is only contractually available to authorised vehicles. (How authorisation is given is a separate matter). If the vehicle is not authorised then the driver (or the keeper) cannot be held to a contractual charge.